Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by S.A.M., Nov 20, 2011.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not the same thing.

    Since most of us can tell the difference between Hollywood and real life and death.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    "Watching a man's entrails spilling out is excellent entertainment, but the sight of his cock, well, that would be obscene."


    source
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, it's simply because showing his actual genitals, which some people would prefer not to be shown, is not important to the story.

    This is too difficult of a concept for you to grasp it would appear.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope.
    You can go to a movie and see either or both and neither are considered obscene (In the US I think that's pretty much limited to child porn and then only when actual children are used).

    The key is you make a CHOICE to do so.

    Again, I know the concept of individual CHOICE is difficult for you to comprehend.
     
  9. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    I've learned one thing from all this...

    I want to see more boobies...
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    So how would this picture be seen by Americans? As child porn? Gratuitous display of nude child? What? Would you recommend the genitals be blurred?

    Moderator warning: The following image is a photo from Vietnam showing the aftermath of a napalm attack.

    http://www4.ncsu.edu/~wjackson/Jackson Images/Vietnam Photos/napalm.jpg

    What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see this picture?

    Moderator warning: The following image is a photo showing some kind of torture, or at least imprisonment.

    http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/prisoner3.jpg

    Do you think

    1. OMG what the hell is going on here [shock/horror]

    Or, do you think

    2. I can see their penises!!! [shock/horror]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2011
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    I support a woman's right to get naked any time she wants to! And the more times the merrier in my book.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope that picture was shown just like that (LIFE magazine IIRC) and in that case, the fact that she pulled her burning the clothes off, were in fact germane to the story.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    So it is possible to look at nude girls and not miss the point of the story?

    What about the second picture? What is more offensive to you? That they are being abused or that their penises are not blurred? Do you feel violated because you were not given the choice to see it after it was censored?
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Never said that did I.
    You just make up strawmen.

    Neither

    I have no problem with nudity.

    My company does though and so continued posting of nude pictures in-line like this is likely to get this site blocked.

    I'm sure you don't care because apparently ONLY your view on this seems to matter.

    Arthur
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    So either of those pictures would be illegal viewing for your company? What about NatGeo? If you look at naked people on NatGeo would your company block it?

    Interestingly, it is only quite recently that one of Bollywood's actors went completely nude on screen - he was racially profiled by Americans in NY who stripped him and interrogated him a la Abu Ghraib. Haven't seen the movie so can't comment on the nudity, but I find it interesting that this is what has introduced nudity in Bollywood men. After that, the taboo has been broken and two more men have gone the full Monty. I don't think I've ever seen full frontal nudity in any American movie. Its quite casual in French films but you have to watch Asian movies to see American actors in the buff
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not likely, but if our company's jpg filter (or however they scan for them) pics up on those OP pictures in this tread the site will likely be blocked.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Hey, you're the one here who thinks religion is just dandy, not me. After feeling certain that Christianity was on the way out in America, as it now seems to be in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the Religious Redneck Retard Revival is in high gear and Christians once again are imposing their strange idea of morality on the rest of us.

    Yes, I know you're a Muslim, and you can identify some very subtle differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism that the rest of us simply can't see. They're all bullshit, they all want to return us to the happy days before the Industrial Revolution, and the sooner we're rid of them all, the better.

    In the meantime, it's ridiculous of you to complain about some other country's religion-based laws, considering that the religion-based laws in many Muslim countries are far more evil than our censorship, which only applies to certain media. I'd rather live in a country that makes me spend ten seconds logging onto a free website if I want to see full frontal nudity (and much more), than one that requires my wife to hide her face in public, prevents her from driving, and punishes HER if she is raped.

    As for photos of mutilated corpses, I don't ever want to see shit like that. If I were not a Moderator I would put you on my ignore list in case you pull a stupid stunt like that again. Don't try it on one of my boards or your worthless ass will be banned for as long as I can get away with it. Photos like that are not on broadcast TV or in family newspapers or magazines any more than nudity is. Once in a great while they'll print a photo like the one of the little girl running away, just to remind us of the horrors of war. I get it. It's okay, once in a great while. But the people who need to see those are the morons in our government who believe that violence is an acceptable way to resolve a disagreement--and the parents who allow (or even encourage!) their children to volunteer for military service, so they can go off and murder some other grieving parent's children.
    They did NOT rule that it was "fine." Once again, you are lying in order to support a fraudulent assertion. This is your trademark: intellectual dishonesty, the worst offense that can be committed in a place of science and scholarship.

    They decided that the network did not show it on purpose, that it may actually have been a "wardrobe malfunction" (in America one is always innocent until proven guilty), and since it lasted for only a fraction of a second there was nothing they could have done about it. They did NOT rule that it was okay for the network to do this, and if it happens again it won't be okay that time either. They simply decided that it was not done in deliberate or even negligent violation of the rules, so they suspended the fine. Big difference between suspending a fine and repealing a rule.

    This happened several years ago, and events like this are the reason so many "live" programs are now shown on a five-second tape delay, giving the engineer just enough time to hit the blackout button. Every broadcaster understands that they were expected to learn from this incident and make it less likely to occur again. Next time the fine will not be suspended.

    But of course you wouldn't know that. You're not really an expert on American life. You just pretend to be.

    It's a good thing we don't judge all Muslims by your behavior. I actually know several Muslims personally, so I know that you are not all lying, cheating, intellectually dishonest manipulators. There are a few bad apples in any group.
     
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Sounds like you aren't watching the right movies, then.

    Meanwhile, maybe you could just create one permanent thread for all your Abu Ghraib photos and related cheap America-baiting. Because this whole thing where you turn every other thread having anything to do with anything into the above, is getting pretty damned old.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2011
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    American cable dramas' Game of Thrones: A Look at the Nudity Debate

    This is how I feel about the nude art that started part of this thread. An Egyptian ex-Muslim girl who became atheist railing against the religious aspect of Egyptian culture of misogyny. I actually posted that we will see more and more of this as the younger modern generation fight against a perverse older religious generation.



    The only problems I have with showing mutilated corpses is
    1. If the family does not want their family member shown.
    2. Desensitization.


    Desensitization of female and male nudity is OK but we shouldn't become "used" to see mutilated corpses. It leads to a disregard for human life. Exactly the opposite of what we should be striving for. To some degree, I'd argue we've become used to seeing starving children.

    I'd also like to note: It seems a little bias to refer to someone as a "Dictator" when they post nude art and NOT to think of one's self as a Dictator when attempting to prevent nude art from being made public. Yeah, I know, there's the "Link". Anyone can click it. Well, what about women being made to wear a Burka? Sure, you want to see the women, speak to her husband or father and maybe you can. But, we wouldn't want to "expose" you to a woman's legs whereby you feel horny and Baby Jesus/Mohammad cries.

    IOWs covering up nude art is, in some very important ways, similar to forcing someone to cover up period. When we force someone else to conform to our desires that's dictatorial. This happened to art in the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" when all statues of the human form were destroyed. You know, you wouldn't want a good Abrahamist to unwittingly see nude statues' penis. While calligraphy did excel, I'd argue most of society actually went backwards. If it weren't for good propaganda, it's be referred to as the Islamic Dim Ages.

    The corporate website argument I can understand. A few times my web browser was blocked unless I agreed to take responsibility and I clicked a button and on I went (that was the Chinese boy being run over link).
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2011
  20. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    At one of my former employers, all internet activity was logged, and periodically reviewed by the IT department. They wouldn't care if it was playboy or natgeo, viewing nude images at work was grounds for termination...as these images could easily lead to an expensive sexual harassment lawsuit. They were very strict about the policy. The general manager of my lab was fired for viewing inappropriate images and websites at work.

    As I stated earlier, it is common courtesy and good "netiquette" to hide NSFW images behind links...which would include pretty much every image in this thread.

    I think it would be a good idea for a mod to change the title to include a NSFW warning...just to be courteous to those who do view at work, and can make the choice to avoid this thread until they get home.
     
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yeah, it's simply common courtesy to include an "NSFW" tag when posting potentially problematic images. This has been standard netiquette for many years, to the point where most forums have specific rules and guidelines demanding such.
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Apparently you don't understand because if you did you would have edited your post to replace the inline picture with a link (your disclaimer is of no value at all).

    If you actually cared about others you would do so.

    You clearly don't care so don't say you do.

    Arthur
     
  23. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Faces of death 1 2 and 3 . Did you see that . Was that Hollywood
     

Share This Page